In re David R. CA2/1

Filed 8/29/13 In re David R. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re DAVID R., a Person Coming Under B239629 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK89136)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E. R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Donna Levin, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Michael A. Salazar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

E.R. (Father) appeals from orders that declared his two-year-old son David a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (d) and (j)1 and removed him from Father’s custody. In our initial opinion we concluded that the juvenile court applied an incorrect standard in finding that David was at substantial risk of being molested by Father solely because on a single occasion Father molested his minor stepdaughter. (In re David R. (2012) B239629, review granted, opinion vacated and cause remanded (S208475) (David R. I).) Accordingly, we reversed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders and remanded the cause for a new trial if the Department of Children and Family Services wished to proceed with the matter. Our Supreme Court granted review of our decision and held the case pending its decision in In re I.J. (S204622) which raised a similar issue. Subsequently the court issued its opinion in In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766 holding that: “[A] father’s prolonged and egregious sexual abuse of his own child may provide substantial evidence to support a finding that all his children are juvenile court dependents.” (Id. at p. 770.) The court remanded David R. I to us with directions to “vacate [our] decision and to reconsider the cause in light of In re I.J.” Having done so, we issue this revised opinion in which we affirm the juvenile court’s orders. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW At the time of the filing of the petition in this case, the family consisted of Father, his son David (age two), David’s mother A.C. and A.C.’s daughter, S.G. (age six). The juvenile court found jurisdiction over S.G. under section 300, subdivision (d), based on evidence that on a single occasion Father forced S.G. to masturbate him to ejaculation and fondled her breasts. This incident took place away from the family home at an apartment that Father was painting. No one else was present.2